167 Responses

I really think it discourages people from running a little campaign unless they are professional politcals.

For example I might want to put up a website or a few posters advocating an issue or a party.

I'd have to publish my home address ( which is nicely situated for people to throw rocks through my bedroom windows)

The requirement that election advertisements carry a promoter statement with a valid address is not new to the EFA. It was part of the old Electoral Act rules too (what has changed is that it is now clear that it applies to the web - and rightly so - and that you can't hide behind a PO Box or fake address as the Brethren did. That latter might change, and its nothing i'm going to die in a ditch over, but the fact remains: if you wanted to campaign pre-EFA, you had to say who you were and where you got your mail).

I think if you engage in politics you do have to unmask your identity at some point. I don't think you could run as an MP or even local councillor if you stood as Mr X and refused to appear on TV unless the pixellated you?

Also, unlike ACT, I don't want to have a society where a candidate needs $600million (or even its NZ equivalent, $10 million) to effectively contest an election. I like a situation where people can make a difference on $3k and personal hard work.

you can't hide behind a PO Box or fake address as the Brethren did. That latter might change, and its nothing i'm going to die in a ditch over, but the fact remains: if you wanted to campaign pre-EFA, you had to say who you were and where you got your mail).

Not true. A PO Box was not an acceptable address under section 221A of the Electoral Act 1993. It had to be a physical address, but could be a business address or the residential address.

Taking the conversation back a little to the consideration of fixed terms, can I commend the following story to you; the Telegraph, hardly a highbrow daily, is campaigning for the sacking of the current NSW Labor government... pity about fixed four year terms but!

if you wanted to campaign pre-EFA, you had to say who you were and where you got your mail).

As I recall the Brethren hid behind a person's name and a box number. If you had to name yourself and your organisation, maybe a box number would do. I agree that it's tough to expect one person in an organisation to make themselves vulnerable.

and that you can't hide behind a PO Box or fake address as the Brethren did.

Um, so you can't give a false address under the current regime? I guess the baseline assumption is that people don't make false statutory declarations, and if they do there are safeguards in the system to detect and punish that fraud.

And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't "hide" behind a PO Box. I live on a busy road, and would prefer the security of my mail (including the occasional parcel and bulky item) being delivered to a secure and safe location.

It was obvious in the case of Rodney's shirt. Would it be if somebody hired 100 out-of-work actors to wear promotional shirts?

But like I say, an exception for clothing would seem reasonable, as would a de minimis rule where the Electoral Commission could just rule that nobody was being unfairly influenced and hence no offence commited.

It was obvious in the case of Rodney's shirt. Would it be if somebody hired 100 out-of-work actors to wear promotional shirts?

Tricky that. I recall John O'Farrell in his memoir "Things can only get better" about the Labour opposition in exile in the UK, paying the au pair £5 to deliver leaflets, and technically being a breach of law, which prohibited paid canvassing. Too much like buying votes I suspect.

It's nice to come back to underlying principles in these things. Fundamentally, the principle is that "buying votes is wrong".

Not sure how to apply that in a modern day and age, when money buys tacticians to run dog whistle politics.

Although Freakonomics blog in the NYT reported a study about whether spending money helps candidates win. Turned out in the US, that there wasn't a correlation - rather it was successful candidates had more money because they were more popular, therefore got more donations, therefore had more to spend.

Thanks for that Rachel, exactly what i wanted someone to say. The whole argument against money spent on advertising hinges on the notion that vast swathes of voters are braindead, which seems ironic whistled in the same breath as 'long live democracy'.

And by heck, it's not as if squillions spent on ads to curtail drink driving have successfully docked the bastard.

As proven by the fact that companies and government organisations, including political parties, spend vast amounts of money advertising to achieve that very result.

Though, as I've often said, Telecom is a living case study in how if you don't have products and services worth a damn, it doesn't really matter how slick (or expensive) the marketing is. The only kind thing you can say about that Dennis Potter-lite 'work drinks at a fake office' ad is that Elemeno P should be making a tidy sum. If Snakes on a Plane was half as good as the viral marketing, and the on-line buzz it generated, perhaps it wouldn't have tanked quite so horribly. In the internet age, it's fascinating watching films have a big opening on the back of enormous promotional pushes. But if the reviews and word of mouth are bad, the decline can (sometimes, literally overnight) be represented by a near-vertical downward line.

In politics, Obama was routinely busting fundraising records in what some pundits are calling the billion dollar electoral cycle. So, did the President-Elect of the United States, in effect, buy the White House? Or was he raising money hand over fist because people who'd never donated a dime to a political candidate in their lives before thought we was worth supporting? Chicken or the egg - what comes first? Which is, I think, where Rachel came in.

Why is it important to know who has how many? and moreover why should who having whatever, somehow find it's way into the same legislation requiring old Tom Pink puts his home address on his protest placard?

In defence of Pete Hodgson. I have had quite a lot to do with the Ministry of Health and other ministries over the years and I have seen him 'let lose in a roomful of people' more than once and he was very impressive. He has a sharp intellect, was always on top of the issues whatever they were, but also knew and acknowledged that others in the particular gathering had lived experience that gave them expertise on the issues under discussion that he didn't and couldn't have.

I also think he was the Minister responsible for the $17.5 million autism specific Health Budget allocation.

He and Steve Maharey were social-democratic philosophers who formed a strategic partnership leading up to the election of the 1999 Labour government, and beyond.

Russell, maybe your negative experience is a geographical thing. He's a Dunedin man and apparently a very good electorate MP.

Ahh....Dunedin. I must admit that after living near Auckland (in Helensville, of all places...) for 25 years that it's great to live less than 5 minutes from where I work......and I can park free 2 minutes walk away. The post election interviews with the local papers' voter panels only had one national supporter..against 2 green and 3 labour supporters! Mind you....I don't think the locals want aucklanders here in great numbers....but they are happy to hear that someone who grew up in the place is glad to return.